本研究旨在調查拉勞蘭排灣語的模態系統。模態(modality)是語言學中用以表達命題之可能性和必要性的意義分類(von Fintel 2006)，而模態詞(modal)指能表達模態意義(modal meaning)的詞彙。本文採用近年主流的語意田野調查方法(Matthewson 2004)來搜集拉勞蘭部落排灣語語料，使用情境進行真值判定(truth value judgment)和適當性判定(felicity judgment)推論模態詞的語意，並基於Kratzer (1981, 1991)模態邏輯(modal logic)及可能世界(possible world)的模態相關理論，以模態類型(modal flavor)及模態推力(modal force)兩個面向(dimension)將所搜集到的模態詞做系統性分類。筆者根據田調的結果記錄了適用知識(epistemic)、義務(deontic)、情況(circumstantial)和能力(ability)等模態類型，以及可能性與必要性兩種模態推力，隨後依此製成拉勞蘭排灣語模態系統之表格。
在調查記錄完拉勞蘭排灣語的模態系統之後，本文將額外討論模態詞tjara。先前有研究將tjara譯為「應該」，然筆者將根據語料主張tjara做為義務模態詞使用時應為必要性模態詞而非弱必要性模態詞，亦即華語語意應為「必須」而非「應該」。
此外筆者亦發現tjara做為知識模態詞使用時，在否定詞轄域(scope)下疑似出現可能性的語意，因此本文亦將初步探討知識模態詞tjara的模態推力可變性(modal force variability)現象，經測試後結果顯示tjara並非可能性模態詞，其於否定詞下的可能性語意，筆者認為是知識模態詞tjara在否定詞下時，表面的句法順序與實際語意的轄域不一致所致，並非tjara有可變的模態推力。

This study aims to investigate the modal system in Lalauran Paiwan. Modality is a category of linguistic meaning having to do with the expression of possibility and necessity (von Fintel 2006), while modals refer to lexical items capable of expressing modal meanings. This research adopts the methodology of semantic fieldwork (Matthewson 2004) to collect data from the Lalauran Paiwan. We infer the semantics of collected data by using contexts for truth value judgments and felicity judgments, rather than by translating. Based on Kratzer's (1981, 1991) theories of modal logic and possible worlds, the collected modal are systematically classified along two dimensions: modal flavor and modal force. This paper documents various modal flavors, including epistemic, deontic, circumstantial, and ability modals, along with two types of modal forces: possibility and necessity. A table summarizing the modal system in Lalauran Paiwan is subsequently presented.
After documenting the modal system in Lalauran Paiwan, this research further discusses the modal tjara. Previous research translated tjara as “should” in Mandarin, but based on the collected data, I argue that when tjara is used as a deontic modal, it should be considered a necessity modal rather than a weak necessity modal. In other words, its meaning in Mandarin should be interpreted as “must” rather than “should”.
Furthermore, we surprisingly found that when tjara is used as an epistemic modal under the scope of negation, it seems to express the meaning of the possibility modal. Thus, the study preliminarily explores the phenomenon of modal force variability in the epistemic modal tjara. After testing, the results suggest that tjara is not a possibility modal. The apparent possibility meaning under negation is argued to arise from a mismatch between the surface syntactic order and the actual semantic scope, rather than indicating that tjara has variable modal force.

Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert Modality in Non-Finite Contexts.
Bochnak, Ryan. 2015. Variable force modality in Washo. In Thuy Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 45: 105-114.
Chen, S. 2012. The temporal interpretation of modals in Mandarin Chinese. UBC working paper in Linguistics 34: 15-30
Chen, Tingchun & Sihwei Chen. 2022. Variable-force Modals in Amis. Talk given at TripleAFLA. June 30, 2022. The University of Manchester.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2011. Modals without scales. Language 87(3): 559-585.
von Fintel, Kai & Sabine Iatridou. 2008. How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), Time and Modality: 115-141.
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. Modality. Language 86(3): 739-741.
Jeretič, Paloma. 2020. Modal strengthening in Ecuadorian Siona and the typology of scaleless implicatures. April 8, 2020. 43rd Generative Grammar in the Old World (GLOW43), Berlin, Germany.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Reiser (eds.), Words, Worlds and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics: An international Handbook of Contemporary Research.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives, volume 36. Oxford University Press.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the Methodology of Semantic Fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4): 369-415.
Matthew Rolka & Seth Cable (2014). Tom and Mittens. Totem Field Storyboards. http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org.
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford University Press: 201.
Rullmann, Hotze, Lisa Matthewson & Henry Davis. 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16(4): 317-357.
Tai, Milingan Chia-hao. 2014. A Study of Modal System in Pucunug Paiwan: A view from Cartography. Master’s Thesis of National Tsing Hua University. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5t5vee.
TFS Working Group (2011). Chore Girl. Totem Field Storyboards. http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org.
Uegaki, Wataru, Anne Mucha, Ella Hannon & Fred Whibley Mucha. 2024. Cross-linguistic dataset of force-flavor combinations in modal elements. Linguistic Variation 24.
Vander Klok, Jozina. 2014. Modal Questionnaire for Cross-Linguistic Use. Online version: https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/tools-at-lingboard/pdf/Modal_Questionnaire_CrossLing_JVK.pdf
Vander Klok, Jozina & Vera Hohaus. 2020. Weak necessity without weak possibility: The composition of modal strength distinctions in Javanese. Semantics & Pragmatics 13(12): 1-55.